From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9 v1 RFC] Generic zcopy_* functions
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:00:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSfcxCncqzUsQh22A5Kdha_+wXmE=tqPk4SiJ3+CEui_Vw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201218211648.rh5ktnkm333sw4hf@bsd-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 4:27 PM Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:49:44PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jonathan Lemon <bsd@fb.com>
> > >
> > > This is set of cleanup patches for zerocopy which are intended
> > > to allow a introduction of a different zerocopy implementation.
> >
> > Can you describe in more detail what exactly is lacking in the current
> > zerocopy interface for this this different implementation? Or point to
> > a github tree with the feature patches attached, perhaps.
>
> I'll get the zctap features up into a github tree.
>
> Essentially, I need different behavior from ubuf_info:
> - no refcounts on RX packets (static ubuf)
That is already the case for vhost and tpacket zerocopy use cases.
> - access to the skb on RX skb free (for page handling)
To refers only to patch 9, moving the callback earlier in
skb_release_data, right?
> - no page pinning on TX/tx completion
That is not part of the skb zerocopy infrastructure?
> - marking the skb data as inaccessible so skb_condense()
> and skb_zeroocopy_clone() leave it alone.
Yep. Skipping content access on the Rx path will be interesting. I
wonder if that should be a separate opaque skb feature, independent
from whether the data is owned by userspace, peripheral memory, the
page cache or anything else.
> > I think it's good to split into multiple smaller patchsets, starting
> > with core stack support. But find it hard to understand which of these
> > changes are truly needed to support a new use case.
>
> Agree - kind of hard to see why this is done without a use case.
> These patches are purely restructuring, and don't introduce any
> new features.
>
>
> > If anything, eating up the last 8 bits in skb_shared_info should be last resort.
>
> I would like to add 2 more bits in the future, which is why I
> moved them. Is there a compelling reason to leave the bits alone?
Opportunity cost.
We cannot grow skb_shared_info due to colocation with MTU sized linear
skbuff's in half a page.
It took me quite some effort to free up a few bytes in commit
4d276eb6a478 ("net: remove deprecated syststamp timestamp").
If we are very frugal, we could shadow some bits to have different
meaning in different paths. SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS is transmit only, I
think. But otherwise we'll have to just dedicate the byte to more
flags. Yours are likely not to be the last anyway.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-19 19:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-18 20:16 [PATCH 0/9 v1 RFC] Generic zcopy_* functions Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 1/9 v1 RFC] net: group skb_shinfo zerocopy related bits together Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 2/9 v1 RFC] skbuff: remove unused skb_zcopy_abort function Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 3/9 v1 RFC] skbuff: replace sock_zerocopy_put() with skb_zcopy_put() Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-19 18:46 ` Willem de Bruijn
2020-12-21 19:18 ` Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-21 22:49 ` Willem de Bruijn
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 4/9 v1 RFC] skbuff: replace sock_zerocopy_get with skb_zcopy_get Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 5/9 v1 RFC] skbuff: Add skb parameter to the ubuf zerocopy callback Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 6/9 v1 RFC] skbuff: Call sock_zerocopy_put_abort from skb_zcopy_put_abort Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 7/9 v1 RFC] skbuff: add zc_flags to ubuf_info for ubuf setup Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 8/9 v1 RFC] tap/tun: use skb_zcopy_set() instead of open coded assignment Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:16 ` [PATCH 9/9 v1 RFC] skbuff: Call skb_zcopy_clear() before unref'ing fragments Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-18 20:49 ` [PATCH 0/9 v1 RFC] Generic zcopy_* functions Willem de Bruijn
2020-12-18 21:16 ` Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-19 19:00 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2020-12-21 19:50 ` Jonathan Lemon
2020-12-21 22:52 ` Willem de Bruijn
2020-12-22 0:07 ` Jonathan Lemon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+FuTSfcxCncqzUsQh22A5Kdha_+wXmE=tqPk4SiJ3+CEui_Vw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).